Start Date: September 18, 2006 End Date: In progress
I was so excited when my friend, Linda Kvamme, sent me a link to this book. More impressive, I thought, was that he offered his book up in the spirit of OA, and I was able to download a copy.
Notes (quotes in italics; my thoughts in bold):
Public access to research has become all the more important in recent years with the increased emphasis on political accountability and the corresponding call for ‘‘evidence-based policymaking’’ in government (xi).
This text deals mainly with OA publishing, but many of the concepts are useful as we study the idea of shared data in chemistry. What is most striking about this comment is that it also acknowledges the shift in "accountability" that we are seeing with the NIH and the NSF - the two bodies that provide most of the funding for US based projects.
What is clear at this point is that open access
to research archives and journals has the potential to change the
public presence of science and scholarship and increase the circulation
of this particular form of knowledge (xi).
Again, he is talking mainly about OA, but the same "increase" will exist with the sharing of data.
What is also clear is that the role that open access will play in the future of scholarly publishing depends
on decisions that will be made over the new few years by researchers,
editors, scholarly societies, publishers, and research-funding agencies (xi).
The researcher he is addressing here are the scientists themselces; in my study, this means chemists.
This is a book that lays out the case for open access and why it should be a part of that future (xi).
This is the premise of the book.
It is driven, however, by something broader which I term the access principle.
I like the terminology he uses and wonder if a similar phrase like "open data principle" would be fitting for collaborative chemists?
In reviewing the case for open access, it makes more sense to focus readers’ attention on ways of increasing access, rather than holding to a strict line on whether a journal article, a journal, or a publisher, for that matter, is open or closed (xii).
I wanted to keep this in mind as a foundation for his work.
So my approach to open access is to hold to an access principle that could be put this way: A commitment to the value and quality of research carries with it a responsibility to extend the circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit by it (xii).
This is his definition of the open access principle.
open access is not free access (xii).
Just another good reminder.
it [OA] is concerned with increasing access to more of the research literature for more people, with that increase measured over what is currently available in print and electronic formats (xii).
The same is true with shared data.
open access speaks to extending the research capacities of developing nations, increasing public rights of access to knowledge, and furthering the policy and political contributions of research, as well as drawing attention to interesting parallels in publishing history (xii).
The interesting part is the impact on political ramifications.
the age-old question of access to knowledge (xiv).
The same question exists for the chemists.
Its goal is to inform and inspire a larger debate over the political and moral economy of knowledge that will constitute the future of research (xiv).
This is an interesting summary statement.
Within days of open access’s ranking in the previous year’s top five science stories, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee was expressing concern over public access to medical research that had been funded by taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The House instructed the NIH to arrive at a policy that would make NIH-funded research freely available through PubMed Central, a National Library of Medicine repository of open access biomedical research journals, within six months of the work’s publication, with this delay in open access intended to protect subscription sales of journal publishers (2).
This is more evidence that demonstrates the need for technical writers to understand the "call to action" expressed by the government.However, no formal policy yet exists.
To get a sense of the potential impact of a legislated measure for open access along the lines of the NIH policy, one should consider that the NIH currently supports $28 billion in biomedical research, resulting in, by some estimates,60,000 articles, annually (2).
Funding solutions for labs will require that tech/grant writers appreciate the scope and nature of the NIH's commitment; while no requirement exists, there may be a time (soon) when that will be the case.
The NIH measure has been supported by the newly formed Alliance for Taxpayer Access (which identifies itself, on its Web site, as ‘‘a diverse and growing alliance of organizations representing taxpayers, patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that support open public access to taxpayer-funded research’’) and by a group of twenty-five Nobel Prize winners who have signed an open letter to the U.S. Congress in support of the measure (‘‘There’s no question, open access truly expands shared knowledge across scientific fields—it is the best path for accelerating multi-disciplinary breakthroughs in research’’) (Alliance for Taxpayer Access 2004). (2)
Clearly, many groups have expressed a vested interest in the OA movement.
On February 3, 2005, the NIH released its Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research. The policy states that ‘‘NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit an electronic version of the author’s final manuscript upon acceptance for publication’’ to PubMed Central, to be released to the public ‘‘as soon as possible (and within twelve months of the publisher’s official date of final publication).’’ (3)
This is the NIH policy - not that it requests - not requires - electronic versions.
However lobbied into dilution, the NIH policy still represents an important government acknowledgment that what has been changed by this new publishing medium is not only the public’s right, but public expectations around that right (3).
Again, the understanding is out there that "the government knows."
Start Date: September 18, 2006
End Date: In progress
I was so excited when my friend, Linda Kvamme, sent me a link to this book. More impressive, I thought, was that he offered his book up in the spirit of OA, and I was able to download a copy.
Notes (quotes in italics; my thoughts in bold):
Public access to research has become all the more important in recent
years with the increased emphasis on political accountability and the
corresponding call for ‘‘evidence-based policymaking’’ in government (xi).
This text deals mainly with OA publishing, but many of the concepts are useful as we study the idea of shared data in chemistry. What is most striking about this comment is that it also acknowledges the shift in "accountability" that we are seeing with the NIH and the NSF - the two bodies that provide most of the funding for US based projects.
What is clear at this point is that open access
to research archives and journals has the potential to change the
public presence of science and scholarship and increase the circulation
of this particular form of knowledge (xi).
Again, he is talking mainly about OA, but the same "increase" will exist with the sharing of data.
What is also clear is that the role that open access will play in the future of scholarly publishing depends
on decisions that will be made over the new few years by researchers,
editors, scholarly societies, publishers, and research-funding agencies (xi).
The researcher he is addressing here are the scientists themselces; in my study, this means chemists.
This is a book that lays out the case for open access and why it should
be a part of that future (xi).
This is the premise of the book.
It is driven, however, by something broader which I term the access principle.
I like the terminology he uses and wonder if a similar phrase like "open data principle" would be fitting for collaborative chemists?
In reviewing the case for open access, it makes more sense to focus
readers’ attention on ways of increasing access, rather than holding to a
strict line on whether a journal article, a journal, or a publisher, for that
matter, is open or closed (xii).
I wanted to keep this in mind as a foundation for his work.
So my approach to open access is to hold to an access
principle that could be put this way: A commitment to the value and
quality of research carries with it a responsibility to extend the circulation
of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested
in it and all who might profit by it (xii).
This is his definition of the open access principle.
open access is not free access (xii).
Just another good reminder.
it [OA] is concerned with increasing access to more of
the research literature for more people, with that increase measured over
what is currently available in print and electronic formats (xii).
The same is true with shared data.
open access speaks to extending the
research capacities of developing nations, increasing public rights of access
to knowledge, and furthering the policy and political contributions
of research, as well as drawing attention to interesting parallels in publishing
history (xii).
The interesting part is the impact on political ramifications.
the age-old question of access to knowledge (xiv).
The same question exists for the chemists.
Its goal is to inform and inspire a larger
debate over the political and moral economy of knowledge that will constitute
the future of research (xiv).
This is an interesting summary statement.
Within days of open access’s ranking in the previous year’s top five
science stories, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee was expressing
concern over public access to medical research that had been funded by
taxpayers through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The House
instructed the NIH to arrive at a policy that would make NIH-funded research
freely available through PubMed Central, a National Library of
Medicine repository of open access biomedical research journals, within
six months of the work’s publication, with this delay in open access intended
to protect subscription sales of journal publishers (2).
This is more evidence that demonstrates the need for technical writers to understand the "call to action" expressed by the government. However, no formal policy yet exists.
To get a sense of the potential impact of a legislated measure for open access along the lines of the NIH policy, one should consider that the NIH currently supports $28 billion in biomedical research, resulting in, by some estimates,60,000 articles, annually (2).
Funding solutions for labs will require that tech/grant writers appreciate the scope and nature of the NIH's commitment; while no requirement exists, there may be a time (soon) when that will be the case.
The NIH measure has been supported by the newly formed Alliance for Taxpayer Access (which identifies itself, on its Web site, as ‘‘a diverse and growing alliance of organizations representing
taxpayers, patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that
support open public access to taxpayer-funded research’’) and by a
group of twenty-five Nobel Prize winners who have signed an open letter
to the U.S. Congress in support of the measure (‘‘There’s no question,
open access truly expands shared knowledge across scientific fields—it
is the best path for accelerating multi-disciplinary breakthroughs in research’’)
(Alliance for Taxpayer Access 2004). (2)
Clearly, many groups have expressed a vested interest in the OA movement.
On February 3, 2005, the NIH released its Policy on Enhancing
Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research.
The policy states that ‘‘NIH-funded investigators are requested
to submit an electronic version of the author’s final manuscript upon
acceptance for publication’’ to PubMed Central, to be released to the
public ‘‘as soon as possible (and within twelve months of the publisher’s
official date of final publication).’’ (3)
This is the NIH policy - not that it requests - not requires - electronic versions.
However lobbied into dilution, the NIH policy still represents an important
government acknowledgment that what has been changed by this
new publishing medium is not only the public’s right, but public expectations
around that right (3).
Again, the understanding is out there that "the government knows."